Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
On Verb Movement in Middle English (for)
to-Infinitives*
Najib Ismail Jarad
Ajman University of Science & Technology
Abu Dhabi, UAE
www.ajman.ac.ae
Abstract
In this article, it will be argued that verb movement in infinitival clauses is
attested throughout the Middle English (henceforth, MidE) period. This
movement is presumably necessitated by the requirement of feature checking à
la Chomsky (1993, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2001). Some empirical evidence relating
to conjoined structures is discussed which shows that the infinitival verb, which
we are assuming raises to Inf in both conjuncts, exhibits the infinitival suffix
without the presence of (for)to. This evidence suggests that the infinitival ending
is not triggered by the presence of (for)to. Furthermore, we shall argue that the
optionality in the position of the so-called VP adverbs with respect to the verb
can only be accounted for if we assume that these adverbs can adjoin either to
InfP or to VP. A direct result of our proposed analysis is that the object is
predicted to raise, hence surface OV order should be attested. In order to account
for the fact that (pro)nominal objects may precede and follow the infinitival verb
we shall assume that accusative Case is assigned to the object DP in [Spec,InfP]
via feature checking with the verb in Inf either in the overt syntax or at LF depending on whether Inf has a strong or weak morphological features. Our
conclusion is that the non-attestation of object shift in Modern English
(henceforth, ModE) to-infinitives can be attributed to the absence of overt
V-to-Inf movement.
0. Introduction
The questions that this article is concerned with stem from our earlier investigation
into the morphological and syntactic status of the MidE infinitival marker (for)to. We
argued, in contrast to Lightfoot (1979, 1981) and Roberts (1992), among others, that
*
An earlier version of this article was presented at the Autumn Meeting of the Linguistics Association
of Great Britain, Middlesex University, September 1994. I wish to thank the audience for their
comments and criticism. I am particularly grateful to Ian Roberts for his valuable and insightful
comments, suggestions, and help throughout the development of this piece of work. I am also indebted
to Ans van Kemenade, Olga Fischer, Bob Borsley, Anna Roussou, and Michelle Aldridge for their
interesting comments and suggestions. All remaining errors are my own.
1
Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
the infinitival marker (for)to must be identified as an independent morphological
constituent base-generated in T(ense), and that the infinitival suffix -e(n) heads its
own functional projection. Various factors which show the morphological unity of
(for)to were established.1,2
There is a consensus among scholars who have worked on MidE syntax that finite
verbs move to C in main clauses and to I in embedded clauses. The precise details of
verb movement are treated in van Kemenade (1987), Lightfoot (1991, 1997), Roberts
(1992, 1995), and Rohrbacher (1994), among many others). Scholars also agree that
the predominant word order in MidE is uniformly Verb-Object (VO) and that surface
OV order can be derived from the underlying order by means of a leftward movement
rule applying to the object DP. If we characterise the difference between VO and OV
orders in MidE in terms of features of functional heads, then the source of variation is
the strength/weakness of features of some functional head or heads. This entails that
non-finite verbs move out of VP to the head of a functional projection. If this turns
out to be true, then we can say that there is a correspondence between the movement
of non-finite verbs and the movement of finite verbs to functional heads in MidE.
In this article, it will be argued that verb movement in infinitival clauses is attested
throughout the MidE period. This movement is presumably necessitated by the
requirement of feature checking à la Chomsky (1993, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2001). Some
1
For details, see Jack (1991) and Jarad (1997: 121-29)
2
Morphological and syntactic evidence shows that Old English (OE) to, unlike MidE forto, is not an
independent element. The fact that OE to can’t be stranded by VP deletion or separated from the
infinitival verb by an element clearly shows that it is not an independent constituent (contra Kageyama
(1992) who argues that OE to should be interpreted as a syntactically independent element). It is argued
in Fischer (1996) and Jarad (1995a&b) that OE to is a preposition (and infinitival marker) which heads
its own PP and takes a dative marked (DP) headed by –ne as its complement. Primary evidence for this
lies in the characteristic dative inflection on the infinitival verb. The possibility of coordinating a
nominal PP with a to-infinitive in OE strongly supports the prepositional status of OE to, as illustrated
in the following example:
ut
eode to his gebede
oððe
to leornianne
mid his geferum
out
went to his prayers
or
to study with his comrades
(Bede Eccles. History III. 5,7; Miller (1898: 162))
‘[he] went out to his prayers or to study with his comrades’
For more examples on this point, see Callaway (1913: 139), Visser (1963-73: §897), and Mitchell
(1985: §965).
2
Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
empirical evidence relating to conjoined structures is discussed which shows that the
infinitival verb, which we are assuming raises to Inf in both conjuncts, exhibits the
infinitival suffix without the presence of (for)to. This evidence suggests that the
infinitival ending is not triggered by the presence of (for)to. Furthermore, we shall
argue that the optionality in the position of the so-called VP adverbs with respect to
the verb can only be accounted for if we assume that these adverbs can adjoin either
to InfP or to VP. A direct result of our proposed analysis is that the object is predicted
to raise, hence surface OV order should be attested. In order to account for the fact
that (pro)nominal objects may precede and follow the infinitival verb we shall assume
that accusative Case is assigned to the object DP in [Spec, InfP] via feature checking
with the verb in Inf either in the overt syntax or at LF depending on whether Inf has a
strong or weak morphological features. Our conclusion is that the non-attestation of
object shift in Modern English (ModE) to-infinitives can be attributed to the absence
of overt V-to-Inf movement.
The outline of this article is as follows. Section 1 will present evidence from conjoined structures (1.1.) and adverb placement (1.2.) supporting the claim that the
infinitival verb undergoes overt movement to Inf. In section 2 we shall consider the
issue of the correlation between verb movement and object shift. Section 3 deals with
what appears to be a problem for the analysis assumed in this chapter, namely
constructions where the weak pronouns and nominal objects occupy a position higher
than [Spec, InfP]. We shall advance a proposal as to how to structurally represent
such constructions. Section 4 addresses the loss of object shift in ModE infinitival
constructions. Finally, section 5 presents the conclusion of this article.
1. V-to-Inf Movement
1.1. Evidence from Conjoined Structures
This subsection argues that the infinitival verb raises overtly to the head position of
the functional projection which houses the infinitival feature. This implies that in an
example like (1), whose simplified structure is given in (2), the verb breoken moves to
3
Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
Inf to check its infinitival features.
(1)
ne nalde he nawt þolien þe þeof forte breoken hire
would not he at all allow the thief to break it
(Sawles Warde 8; Bennett & Smithers (1966: 247))
‘he wouldn't allow the thief to break into it’
(2)
...[TP forte [InfP [Inf' breoken [VP [V' tv ...]]]]]
The first piece of evidence for V-to-Inf movement derives from the optional reduction
of (for)to in co-ordinated structures, as illustrated in (3)
(3) a. for it sholde be koud the moore lightly for to [withholden it the moore esily in
herte]
for it should be known the more lightly to withhold it the more easily in
heart
and [helpen hymself] = and help himself
(c1386 Chaucer Cant.T. X 1041; Benson (1987: 326))
‘for it should be known more quickly to hold it easily in heart & help himslef’
b. it is nat good for to [take the breed of sonys] and [sende it to houndis]
it is not good
to take the bread of sons and send it to dogs
(c1382 Wyclif Mt. 15; Visser (1963-73: §967))
‘it is not good to take the bread of sons & send it to dogs’
c. Thou syest thy princes han yeven myght both [[for to sleen] and [for to
quyken]] a
you say your princes have given power both for to die and for to live a
wight = man
(c1386 Chaucer Cant. T. VIII. 480; Benson (ibid.: 286))
‘you say your princes bestowed on you power of life & death’
As shown in (3) when (for)to-infinitival complements are co-ordinated, the second
conjunct may or may not repeat (for)to. The important observation about (3) is the
fact that the infinitival verb exhibits the infinitival suffix -e(n) regardless of whether
or not (for)to is used.3 The question arises here as to how the infinitival verb is
3
The importance of this observation lies in the fact that in OE it is impossible to have the dative ending
-enne/anne on an inflected infinitive without to immediately preceding it or to have a bare infinitive
preceded by to (though now and then in poetry, seldom in prose, to is followed by the uninflected
infinitive (see Mustanoja (1960: 513))). This is so because the inflected infinitive in origin is made up
of the preposition to plus the dative case of a verbal noun ending in -enne/anne (see Callaway (1913:2),
Visser (1963-73: § 896), and Mitchell (1985: §§ 921-24)).
4
Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
derived. Since co-ordination normally involves phrasal constituents, examples like the
ones in (3) suggest that the bracketed strings are phrases (cf. Larson (1988: 345, nt.
11)).4 Moreover, Johnson (1991) argues that the verb in conjoined structures adjoins
to a functional head whose projections dominate VP. In our account, we identify this
functional head as Inf. Thus, the observation (noted earlier) that the infinitival suffix
is not triggered by the presence of (for)to can be captured by saying that this suffix is
licensed by V-to-Inf movement, giving the following representation for (3d).
(4)
[TP forto [InfP [Inf' withholdeni [VP ti it...]]]] and [InfP [Inf' helpeni [VP ti hymself]]]
The crucial fact to note in (4) is that head movement has taken place in both
conjuncts. If head movement has not taken place in the second conjunct, the
construction will not converge, i.e. it will crash, which is not the case in (4).
1.2. Verb Movement & Adverb Placement
A further justification for verb movement is based on the relative position the
infinitival verb assumes with respect to VP adverbs. We take up the conventional
view that adverbs should be sisters of the constituents they modify (cf. Zubizarretta
(1982) and Sportiche (1988)). On this view, (5a) would have the simplified structure
given in (6).
(5) a. and forto tellen withoute ryme þeos wordes
and to tell without rhyme those words
(Saint Kenelm 186; Bennett & Smithers (ibid: 104))
‘and to tell those words without rhyme’
b. bot now it is not so, for to suffre meekly and in mesure þe pyne of þe original
synne
but now it is not so, to suffer humbly and in moderation the pain of the
original sin
(c1360 The Cloud of Unknowing 83b,4; Hodgson (1944: 119))
‘but now it is not so to suffer humbly and moderately the pain of the original
sin’
4
Olga Fischer (personal communication) raised the question as to why the coordinated infinitives in
(3a,b) are InfPs and not full IPs. The reason why they are InfPs, we assume, has to do with the fact that
(for) to, which occupies the Tense position, is not repeated in the second conjunct, and that both
conjuncts share the same subject.
5
Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
c.
thy desire is forto witen overmore the forme of Aristotles lore
your desire is to know too much the form of Aristotle's traditions
(c1390 Gower C.A. 7.607; Pickles & Dawson (1987))
‘your desire is to know more about the form of Aristotle's traditions’
d.
whair I ane galland micht get aganis the nixt yeir forto perfurneis
where I one gentleman might get in preparation for the next year for to
perform
furth the work when failyit the other
further the work when fail it the other
(1505 William Dunbar 84; Burrow (1977: 386))
‘where I as one gentleman might get in preparation for the next year; to carry
out the
work further when others fail to perform it’
(6)
...[InfP [Inf' tellen [VP ADV [VP [V' tv ...]]]]]
Faced with the fact that the adverbs in (5) follow the verb and precede complements
(that are not likely to have been moved to the right), if these adverbs are adjoined to
VP, then verb movement has taken place. This reasoning parallels Pollock's (1989)
account of French. The position of these adverbial phrases argues for movement of
the infinitival verb out of its base-generated position to a functional head which we
identify as Inf.
If the assumption that the (for)to + verb + ADV order of constituents implies that the
verb has moved out of its base-generated position in VP, then the question which
immediately arises is how to account for the (for)to + ADV + verb order. The
examples in (7) illustrate this order:
(7) a. the prestis ben forfended to enymore takyn monee of the puple
the priests are forbidden to anymore take money of the people
(c1382 Wyclif Selected. Works II, 303; Visser (ibid: §981))
‘the priests are forbidden to take any more money from the people’
b. we han bound us silf for to neuere touche neither bere money
we have bound ourselves to never touch neither bear money
(c1449 Pecock Repressor XIV; Babington (1860: 556))
‘we have bound ourselves neither to touch nor bear money’
6
Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
c. a modir is not bounde forto alwey and for euere fede her children
a mother is not bound to always and forever feed her children
(c1449 Pecock Repressor XII; Babington (ibid.:219))
‘a mother is not always & forever bound to feed her children’
d. he schal not be able to fruytefully preie for him silf neiþer for oþere
he shall not be able to fruitfully pray for him self neither for other
(c1449 Pecock Reule of Crysten Religioun 160a; Greet (1927: 421))
‘he shall not be able to pray fruitfully either for himself or for others’
Given the (for)to + ADV + verb order of constituents in (7), and given that the
infinitival verb must move to Inf to check its inflectional infinitival feature, 5 it follows
that the adverb must occupy a position higher than Inf after V-movement has taken
place. Assuming that VP adverbs can adjoin either to VP or InfP,6 we can maintain
the conclusion with respect to the examples in (5) and (7), that the infinitival verb has
undergone V-to-Inf movement in both types of example. More to the point, the
examples in (7) show that there is a higher position for ADV. Assuming the position
of (for)to in T, (7) shows that ADV is lower than T, the infinitival verb must be in Inf.
Thus any account of MidE infinitival clauses which assumes that VP adverbs can only
adjoin to VP would fail to account for their ability to appear preceding the infinitival
verb, since this infinitival verb moves out of VP. On the other hand, any account
which assumes that the infinitival verb does not move out of VP would fail to account
for the ability of these adverbs in examples like (5) to appear after the infinitival verb.
Visser (ibid) points out that the earliest examples in which the infinitive is separated
from (for)to by a word or words-due to the tendency to put the modifiers of a verb as
close before it as possible-date back to the 13th century.7
Next we turn to the strongest piece of evidence supporting our postulation that the
infinitival verb moves to Inf.
5
But cf. Nunes (1993) for a different view on this point.
6
On the possibility of adverbs adjoining to VP or InfP in French and Italian infinitives, see Kayne
(1991).
7
The use of adverbs before the infinitival verb since the 13th century clearly shows that the to-infinitive
lost its nominal status (see footnote 2 above).
7
Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
2. Object Shift
The fundamental issues raised by the phenomenon of Object Shift (OS) are the
questions why and when (pro)nominal objects must overtly move to a case-checking
specifier position to the left of their base-generated position. These questions have
been widely discussed in the literature of the Principles & Parameters (PP)
framework. Three analyses have been proposed to tackle the issue of object shift. The
first analysis, which was proposed by Josefsson (1992), maintains that object shift is
head movement; the second analysis holds that object shift is an instance of A-bar
movement (cf. Holmberg (1986,1991)), whereas the third one regards object shift as
an instance of A-movement (cf. Branigan (1992), Chomsky (1995) Johnson (1991)
Roberts (1995), and Vikner (1994)). We believe that taking object shift as head
movement forces us to postulate a kind of head movement that is otherwise not
attested at all in MidE (for)to-infinitives.8 Roberts (1995) argues against this claim
which allegedly assimilates object shift to cliticisation in Romance. He points out that
pronoun object shift has many properties that are quite unlike any Romance cliticisation. For instance, Romance clitics always occupy special positions, unlike Mainland
Scandinavian object pronouns, which may remain in their base position if the verb
does not move.9 Given this point of view, we reject the head-movement analysis of
object shift. Our next task will be to investigate whether or not object shift is an
instance of A-bar movement.
Assuming that object shift is an instance of A-bar movement, the null hypothesis is
that it could make use of the [Spec, CP] position and thus be able to move DPs into
higher clauses successive cyclically. However, this is not the case, as the following
examples illustrate.
8
An additional argument against the head movement analysis of object shift derives from the fact that
object shift affects full DPs in MidE (for)to-infinitives. Iam indebted to Susan Pintzuk (personal
communication) for bringing this to my attention.
8
Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
(8) a. & for ðelliche þing hine forhowest & forlatst ðat tu ne wilt to him clepiyen ne
to
& for such things him despise & hate that you neither wish to him call
nor to
his niede him helpen = his need him
help
(1200 Vices & Virtues 28; Holthausen (1921: 65))
‘and for such things you despise him and omit to call on him, not to help him
in his need’
b. swo hi nomen conseil betuene hem þet hi wolden go forto hyne anuri
so the consulted between them that they wanted to go to him greet
(13...Kentish Sermons 9; Bennett & Smithers (ibid: 214))
‘so they would consult with each other that they wanted to go to greet him’
c. summe heeres or reders being moche redier forto suche writingis lette &
distroie
somehearers or readers being much readier to such writings let and destroy
þan forto eny suche bi her owne laboure fynde, make & multiplie
than to any such by their own labour find, make & multiply...
(c1445 Pecock The Donet 3a,25; Hitchcock (1921 :6))
‘hearers or readers are being prepared to abandon & destroy such writings than
to find...’
d.
Y have no peny, quod Piers, polettes forto begge
I have no penny, said P.
chickens to buy
(c1370 Langland P. Plowman 281; Burrow (ibid.: 121)
‘Piers said that he had no penny to buy chickens’
The examples in (8) show that object shift is a non-wh-type of movement, i.e. object
shift is not an A-bar movement. How do they show this? The position of the object in
(8a,b,c) clearly shows that the shifted object is not in [Spec, CP]10. Since it occurs
between forto and the infinitival verb, object shift appears to be bounded. Therefore,
in what follows, we shall assume that OS is an instance of A-movement, and that
[Spec, InfP] qualifies as the landing site for OS, as partially represented in (9):
9
See Roberts (1995) for more details.
Observe that in (8d) the object could not be in [Spec, CP], given the fact that a null operator is there
(since this is a purpose clause).
10
9
Journal of Language and Linguistics
(9)
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
AgrSP
AgrS’
DP
AgrS
TP
T
InfP
Inf’
Obj
Inf
VP
V’
DP
Subj
V
tobj
Under minimalist assumptions, this movement is triggered by the need to satisfy the
Case filter, i.e. that the accusative Case feature is checked by a functional head, Inf in
this case, under Spec-Head agreement. In order to support this assumption, we shall
first present evidence relating to weak pronouns. Then, we shall extend the analysis to
full DPs and argue that MidE has an optional leftward object shift.
Concerning the first point, consider the following examples.
(10) a. ġif þe hosebonde wiste whanne þe þeof wolde come wake he wolde ffor to
him
if the husband knew when the thief would come wake he would to him
ffounde= attack
(c1280 S. Leg.Pass. (Pep) 526; Visser (ibid:§978))
‘if the husband knew when the thief would come, he would wake up to attack
him’
b. he sal þe send Angels for to þe defend
he shall you send Angels to you defend
(13.. Curs. M. 12965; Visser (ibid.: §978))
‘he shall send you angels to defend you’
c. & such oþere of which y am not ware, & þerfore forto hem avoid &
agenstonde
Y may not in special labore and wirche
(c1443 Pecock Reule of Crysten Religioun 67a; Greet (ibid.: 174))
‘and others of which I am not aware, and therefore I may not avoid and endure
them in special work’
10
Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
d. thoug thei not rede and studie in the Bible oonly forto it leerne
though they not read and study in the Bible only to it learn
(c1449 Pecock Repressor XI; Babington (ibid: 59))
‘though they do not read & study in the Bible only to learn it’
If we assume, following Chomsky (1986b) and Williams (1994), that immediate
sisterhood is a necessary condition for θ-role assignment to take place, then the
non-sisterhood relation of the verb and its object in the surface string must be the
result of movement. It is worth mentioning that English was preponderantly
Verb-Object (VO) after the 12th century (cf. Canale (1978) & Lightfoot (1991)).
Therefore, the OV order in (10) must be derived. Crucially, the overt movement of
him in (10a), þe in (10b) hem in (10c), and it in (10d) to [Spec, InfP]11 to have their
accusative Case features checked is possible only if the verb has moved overtly to Inf.
But what makes the verb move overtly to Inf? The reason for this movement, we
assume, is that MidE has overt verbal morphology; there are thus morphological
features in Inf triggering V-to-Inf movement in (10). Put another way, Inf's features
trigger movement into its checking domain. For this reason, when the infinitival verb
moves to the checking domain of Inf, the object pronouns in examples like (10a-d) are
required to move to [Spec, InfP] in order to check the Case feature of Inf. While this
accounts for the derivation of the verb, it raises the question as to how (i) the object
should move across the subject in [Spec, VP] and (ii) how the subject should move
across the object to a higher position. For an answer to these questions, see Branigan
(1992) and Chomsky (1993, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2001).
One of the properties of OS in Mainland Scandinavian (MSc) languages is that it
distinguishes between weak pronouns and full DPs. According to Holmberg (1986)
MSc weak pronominal objects are required to move to a position which nominal
objects do not move to because weak pronominals show morphological case. This is
also true of Icelandic nominal objects which exhibit morphological case and undergo
object shift but only optionally. However, the attestation of examples like those in
(11) poses a serious problem for Holmberg's analysis. That is, the nominal objects in
11
One might say that the object in (10a-d) could be in a position higher than [Spec, InfP]. We believe
that this is incompatible with our assumption that (for)to is in T. Since we have seen arguments that
forto is in T, obj must be in [Spec, InfP] in forto-object-V-order.
11
Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
(11) exhibit no morphological case but they nevertheless undergo object shift (cf. also
Faroese, as discussed in Vikner (1994)).
(11) a. he sal bath regn in pes and rest to temple makie he sal be best
he shall both reign in peace and rest to temple make he shall be best
(13.. Curs. M. 8318; Visser (ibid: §978))
‘he shall rule both in peace & rest & be the best to build a temple’
b. wel lever is me liken yow and dye than for to anythyng or thynke or seye That
well better is me to like you and die than to anything or think or say that
yow myghte offende in any tyme
you might offend in any time
(c1374 Chaucer Compl.Lady 122; Benson (ibid: 643))
‘it is better to me to like you and die than to think of or say anything that
might offend you in any time’
c. Triacle schal be leide to...forto þe posteme breke
Treacle shall be laid to
to the boil break
(c1398 Trevisa tr.De Propr. rerum 98 b/a; Visser (ibid: §978)
d. it folewith that forto eny of hem bothe holde is not feyned waar
it follows that to any of them both hold is not stop war
(c1449 Pecock Repressor III; Babington (ibid: 14))
‘it follows that holding any of them is not going to stop the war’
What these examples show is that there is an A-position in which accusative Case is
checked, and that both pronominal and nominal objects requiring this Case raise
overtly to the same position. More specifically, we contend that the movement of the
pronominal and nominal objects to [Spec, InfP] to have their Case and agreement
features checked in examples like (11) is obligatory. In order to support this
contention, consider the following examples where the shifted object is preceded by
an adverb.
(12) a. seoþþe in alle londes, hi
eoden vor to prechen, and for to fully þat folk
and godes
then in all lands
they went
to preach and to fully those people
and God's
lawe techen= law teach
(c1275 Passion Our Lord 674; Visser (ibid: §982))
‘then they went all over the world to preach and teach God's law in full to
those people’
12
Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
b. whanne the peple were vnkinde and vndeuout forto sufficiently hem fynde in
when the people were unkind and undevout
to sufficiently them find in
necessaries= unnecessary
(c1449 Pecock Repressor XI, Babington (ibid: 342))
Examples like (12) are consistent with our analysis of the so-called VP adverbs,
which we have assumed can adjoin either to VP or InfP. Here they are adjoined to
InfP and the object is shifted to [Spec, InfP], as illustrated in the simplified structure
given in (12').
(12')
...[TP (for)to [InfP ADV [InfP obj [Inf' V + e(n) [VP [V' tv tobj ]]]]]]
The question that arises is: what has the positioning of the adverb got to do with
object shift? Since OS is contingent on overt verb movement for reasons having to do
with equidistance and since the position of the moved verb can be shown by the
position of the adverb, the object moves to [Spec, InfP] to form the surface strings
illustrated in (12a,b) above.
If the conclusion that object (pro)nominals must overtly undergo A-movement to
[Spec, InfP] to have their morphological features checked is correct, then the
occurrence of sentences like (13)12 and (14) is clearly a problem.
(13) a. and sitte bi þis holi bodi al þe logue dai, ase it were forto honouri him for
hit...
and sit by this holiy bodi all the long day as it were to honour him for it
(Saint Kenelm 150; Bennett & Smithers (ibid: 102))
‘and sit by this holy body all day long, as it were, to honour him for it...’
b. he bad hem forto telle it plein
he asked them to tell it plain
(c1390 Gower C.A. 7. 3968; Pickles & Dawson (ibid))
12
One possibility is to assume with Kayne (1991) that weak pronominals must be governed by a
functional head. This requirement is met only if we assume that Inf lowers down onto the infinitival
verb. But the attestation of examples like (14) shows that this option is available for full DPs.
Therefore, we shall not pursue this option here.
13
Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
(14) a. all his entente is forte tweamen heorten, forte bineomen luue þet halt men
togeders
all his intention is to attack hearts to destroy love that holds men together
(c1230 Ancrene Wisse. 165; Bennett & Smithers (ibid: 229))
‘all his intention is to attack hearts & destroy the love that holds men together’
b. it is noġt possible forto make articulaciouns
(c1425 Chauliac (1) 13a\b; MED)
‘it is not possible to make articulations’
In order to account for the fact that the pronominal objects in (13) remain in situ we
must appeal to the principle of Procrastinate. This principle rules out any movement
which is not driven by strong morphological features, i.e. features which must be
checked before SPELL-OUT. So the strong features of Inf must have driven the
movement of the verbs to Inf in the examples above. But the features in question must
have the option of being weak in (13) and (14) above. Chomsky (1993, 1995)
proposes that there must be some optionality in the strength of features at the point at
which lexical items are selected from the lexicon. When strong D-features of Inf are
chosen, the object must be raised to [Spec, InfP] in overt syntax. When weak
D-features are chosen, the overt movement will be blocked by Procrastinate. We
conclude that the optionality of OS in MidE can be ascribed to the strength or
weakness of morphological features in Inf.13 In conclusion, we should stress that overt
verb movement in MidE (for)to-infinitives is always found, but the connection
between overt verb movement and object shift is not systematic. What this shows is
that verb movement only facilitates object shift, but it does not require it.
3. A Remaining Problem
Having established that object shift is an instance of A-movement and that [Spec,
InfP] qualifies as the landing site for the shifted object, we can now formulate the
A/A-bar distinction as follows:
13
Following Holmberg (1986), Roberts (1995) points out that Icelandic objects obligatorily shift
whenever the (finite) verb moves, and that nominal objects optionally shift. He attributes the
obligatoriness of pronoun object shift to the systematic verb movement, and the optionality of nominal
object shift to the fact that AgrO has an optionally strong D-feature. Our claim here is that MidE is like
14
Journal of Language and Linguistics
(15)
a.
b.
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
A chain α is an A-chain iff the head of α is in an L-related position
A chain α is an A-bar chain otherwise (Chomsky & Lasnik (1993))
Chomsky (1993, 1995) defines the A/A-bar distinction in terms of the notion
L-related. A position is L-related if it is in the domain of an L-head, where L-heads
are lexical heads and heads which check the features of lexical heads. V, N, A, and P
as lexical heads are L-heads. T, Inf and Agr are L-heads because they check the
features of lexical heads, whereas C and Neg are not L-heads. A-positions are
L-related, whereas A-bar positions are not. Movement to [Spec, AgrsP/InfP] for
Case-theoretic reasons is an instance of A-movement while adjunction, topicalisation,
and scrambling are instances of A-bar movement.
It is clear that (15), in conjunction with the postulate that object shift moves DPs into
a Case-checking position and that Case-checking positions are always and only
L-related, derives the required result that chains formed by object shift are A-chains,
as opposed to A'-movement (e.g. WH-movement), where Case features are checked at
the foot of the chain. Put another way, A-moved DPs check their Case features with a
functional head in their landing site, whereas A-bar moved DPs do not. With this
distinction in mind, let's consider the following examples:
(16) a. he hoved over a hive the hony forto kepe
he stood over a hive the honey to keep
(c1402 Mum & the Sothsegger 966; Burrow (ibid.: 263))
‘he stood over a hive to keep the honey’
b. first he clad him in his clothes the colde forto were
first he clothed him in his clothes the cold to ward off
(c1360 Sir G. & the Gr. Knight 2015; Burrow (ibid.: 79))
‘first he clothed him in his clothes to ward off the cold’
c. mony a mery mason was made þer to werk, harde stones forto hewe with
many a merry mason was made there to work hard stones to shape with
eggit toles, mony grubber in grete þe grounde forto seche
sharp-edged tools many diggers in earth the (solid) ground to search
(c1390 St.Erkenwald 41; Burrow & Turville (1992: 202))
‘many a merry mason was made to work there, to shape hard stones with
sharp-edged tools; & many diggers search in the solid ground’
Icelandic. That is, optional object shift is attested with both weak pronouns and full DPs.
15
Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
d. for everi wight that hath an hous to founde ne renneth naught the werk for to
bygynne
for every man that has a house to build neg runs not
the labour to
begin
(c1387 Troli. I.1066; Benson (ibid.: 488))
‘for any man who has to build a house does not run at once to begin the
labour’
(17) a. & þrattest hine to slœnne and his cun to fordonne
& threaten him to slay & his kin to destroy
(C1200-20 LaЗamon's Brut 9351; Barron & Weinberg (1989: 8))
‘& threaten to slay him & destroy his kin’
b. at Octa scal ifinden that he þrattede me to binden
that Octa shall find that he threatened me to fetter
(c1200-20 LaЗamon's Brut 9745; Barron & Weinberg (ibid.: 26))
‘as Octa shall discover that he swore to fetter me’
c. he ne oghte nat hyt for to telle
he neg ought not it
to tell
(c1303 R. of Brunne Handlyng Synne 3659; Sullens (1983: 93))
‘he ought not to tell it’
d. forþi me forto fynde, if þou fraystez, faylez þou never
therefore me to find if you ask
fail you never
(c1360 Sir G. & the Gr. Knight 455; Burrow & Turville (ibid.:196))
‘therefore if you ask you won't fail to find me’
e. none othir noote to eneve is nede but latte us haste hym forto hange
no other business to talk about is need but let us haste him to hang
(c1463-73 The York Play 28; Burrow & Turville (ibid.: 251)
‘there is no need to talk about any other business but to let us hasten to hang
him’
Still assuming that (for)to is in T, these examples show that OS can go higher than
T.14 Observe that examples like (16) and (17) seem to involve movement to an A-bar
position, given that the landing site of the moved object is not [Spec, InfP], and we
assume it's not [Spec, AgrSP] and [Spec, TP] too as PRO and its trace must be there.
In other words, the surface position of the object DPs in the above examples violates
the requirement of Spec-Head relationship between the accusative Case assigner [Inf
+ V] and the accusative Case assignee. It is tempting to analyse (16) and (17) as
14
Note that analysing (16) and (17) as involving incorporation of the object DPs either to T or to AgrS
is unsatisfactory because they are clearly DPs in the non-pronominal examples and so can't incorporate
to heads.
16
Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
instances of scrambling.15 There is good reason for analysing these examples as cases
of scrambling. First note that scrambling affects definite DPs, as in (16). Secondly,
weak pronouns are often scrambled (except where they stay lower, as in the examples
cited in section 2), as in (17).
Interesting confirmation for our analysis comes from Dutch: in Dutch definite DPs are
more likely to scramble than indefinite ones, as the following examples illustrate:16
(18) a. dat zij dat boeki na eenmaal ti gekocht heeft
that she that book after all bought has
b. dat zij na eenmaal dat boek gekocht heeft
(19) a. dat zij na eenmaal een huis gekocht heeft
that she after all a house bought has
b. ?dat zij een huisi na eenmaal ti gekocht heeft
The data above show that scrambling can affect only definite DPs in Dutch as well as
MidE. However, (20) shows that scrambling in MidE does affect indefinite
(20) a. shold not a ladde be in londe a lord forto serve
should not a lady be in land a lord to serve
(1352 Winner & Waster 388; Burrow (ibid.: 42))
‘shouldn't there be a lady on earth to serve a lord’
b. forto shake to the shawe and shewe him the estres, in ich holt that they had
to go out to the wood and show him the coverts
in each wood that they had
an hare forto finde= a hare to find
(c1352 Winner & Waster 404; Burrow (ibid.: 43))
‘they would go out to the woods and show him the coverts, and that they had
found a hare in each wood’
15
It is not clear to us whether scrambling is A- or A'-movement. Some authors claim that scrambling is
A'-movement, and that the trace left by scrambling is a variable. Fanselow (1990) and Santorini (1991)
claim that scrambling (in German) is A-movement and therefore leaves behind an anaphoric trace.
Webelhuth (1989:406-14) argues that scrambling exhibits properties of both A- and A'-movement.
Müller & Sternefeld (1991) reject these analyses and argue that scrambling is uniformly A'-movement,
in German and elsewhere.
16
These examples are taken from Haegeman (1991).
17
Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
c. this is a mervail message a man forto preche among enmies so mony and
mansed
this is a marvel message a man to preach among enemies so many and cursed
fendes= devils
(c1360 Gawain Patience 81; Burrow (ibid.: 49))
'this is a marvel message to preach to a man who lives among so many
enemies and cursed devils'
d. that is so horrible a tale for to rede
(C1386 Chaucer Cant. T. II. 84; Benson (ibid: 88))
‘the tale is too horrible, it can’t be read’
e. was I so besy no man forto preche
(c1387 Chaucer Troil. II.569; Benson (ibid.: 497))
'was I so busy that I couldn't preach any man'
We have to take these examples to be untypical cases of scrambling. On the
assumption that the scrambled DP is adjoined to AgrsP, (16a) would have the
following partial representation:
(21)
[AgrSP DP [AgrSP DP [AgrS’ AgrS [TP T [InfP DP [Inf’ Inf [VP DP [V’ V DP]]]]]]]]
The object DP the hony goes first to [Spec, InfP] and then scrambles to an AgrSPadjoined position. Such a claim is unsatisfactory because it gives rise to a (crucial)
problem. That is, it does not explain why the object DP must move past [Spec, InfP].
It merely states that the object DP is adjoined to AgrSP, begging the very basic
question of how the accusative Case would be assigned to that DP. The answer to this
question is that Case is transmitted to the object DP via its trace in [Spec, InfP]. More
to the point, the morphological features of the object DP are checked with the foot of
the chain in [Spec,InfP] and then transmitted to the head of the chain in its
AgrSP-adjoined position.17 This results in two linked chains. The lower chain is a
uniform A-chain, with its head in [Spec, InfP] and its foot or tail inside VP (i.e. the
object position). The higher chain is a non-uniform A’-chain, with its head in A’position (adjoined to AgrSP) and its foot or tail in A-position, i.e. in [Spec, InfP].
17
It should be noted that the adjunction-to-AgrSP idea doesn't really solve the problem. All that we can
say in this case is that there are two levels of object shift: one to [Spec, InfP\AgrOP] and one to a
18
Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
4. The Loss of Object Shift
Recall that object shift in MidE infinitival constructions required the overt adjunction
of the verb to the functional head Inf (and the projection of the Spec of InfP to host
the shifted object). By the beginning of the 15th century, the infinitival ending died
out, so there was no trigger for overt infinitive movement, and accordingly overt
object shift disappeared. Thus the absence of object shift in ModE to-infinitives is
keyed to the absence of overt verb movement. The disappearance of overt object shift
implies that speakers of ModE replaced shifted objects with a simpler and less costly
construction. In finite clauses, object shift with weak pronouns seems to have been
possible in the 16th century, as argued for in Roberts (1995). The loss of object shift
is also keyed to the general loss of overt verb movement in finite clauses. A crucial
aspect of Roberts' (1995) analysis and of ours is that they lead to the conclusion that
the English object pronoun system has not changed at all since the MidE period. What
has changed since then is the position of both the finite and the infinitival verbs. Since
these two verbs never move to AgrO or Inf, they neither trigger nor license object
shift.
5. Conclusion
Given the evidence presented above for verb movement in MidE for-to-infinitives and
the evidence presented in van Kemenade (1987), Roberts (1992), and Rohrbacher
(1994) for verb movement in finite clauses, we conclude that there is a
correspondence between non-finite verb movement and finite verb movement in
MidE. On the basis of morphological and syntactic evidence we have argued in this
article that the infinitival verb must raise to the functional head of InfP in MidE.
Support for this conclusion was drawn from conjoined structures, the position that VP
adverbs adopt relative to the verb, and from object shift. Concerning object shift, we
have shown that analysing object shift as an instance of A-movement provides a more
straightforward and coherent description of the syntactic behaviour of (pro)nominal
objects in MidE (for)to-infinitives. Further and more importantly, we have shown that
position above AgrS but below C, i.e. below that in a finite clause.
19
Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
the optionality of object shift is attributable to the optional strength or weakness of
D-features in Inf, and that the absence of object shift in ModE is ascribable to the loss
of verb movement to Inf, which took place in the early part of the 15th century.
About the Author
Dr Najib Ismail Jarad works in the Faculty of Foreign Languages & Translation,
Ajman University of Science & Technology, Abu Dhabi, PO Box: 5102, UAE.
Email: najibjarad@hotmail.com
References
Primary Sources
Babington, C. (ed.) (1860) R. Pecock The Repressor of over much Blaming of the
Clergy. Vols. I. & II. Longman: London.
Barron, W.R.J. & S.C. Weinberg (eds.) (1989) LaЗamon's Brut. Longman:
London/New York.
Bennett, J.A.W. & G.V. Smithers (eds.) (1966) Early Middle English Verse and
Prose. The Clarendon Press: Oxford.
Benson, L.D. (ed.) (1987) The Riverside Chaucer. Oxford university Press: London.
Burrow, J. (ed.) (1977) English Verse 1300-1500. Longman: London.
Burrow, J. A. & T. Turville-Peter (eds.) (1992) A Book of Middle English. Blackwell,
Oxford: London.
Greet, W. C. (ed.) (1927) R. Pecock: The Reule of Crysten Religioun. (EETS)
Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press: London/ New York
Hitchcock, E.V. (ed.) (1921) R. Pecock: The Donet. (EETS), H. Milford, Oxford
University Press: London/ New York.
Hodgson, P. (ed.) (1944) The Cloud of Unknowing & the Book of Privy Counselling.
(EETS), H. Milford, Oxford University Press: London/ New York.
Holthausen, F. (ed.) (1921) Vices & Virtues: A Soul's Confessions of its Sins. PI.
(EETS), Trübner & Co.: London.
Kurath, H. S.M. Kuhn & R.E. Lewis (eds.) (1954---) Middle English Dictionary
(MED). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
20
Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
Miller, T. (ed.) (1898) Bede's ecclesiastical History of the English People. vol. I,
(EETS),N. Trübner & Co.: London.
Millett, B. & J. W. Browne (eds.) (1990) Medieval English Prose for Women:
Selections from the Katherine Group & Ancrene Wisse. Clarendon Press:
Oxford.
Pickles, J.D & J.L. Dawson (eds.) (1987) A Concordance to John Gower's Confessio
Amantis D.S. Brewer, Cambridge: London.
Sullens, I. (ed.) (1983) Havelok. Clarendon Press: Oxford.
Secondary Sources
Bean, M. (1983) The Development of Word Order Patterns in Old English. Croom
Helm: London.
Branigan, P. (1992) Subjects & Complementisres. PhD dissertation, MIT (distributed
by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics).
Callaway, M. (1913) The Infinitive in Anglo-Saxon. Carnegie Institution. Washington,
D.C.
Canale, M. (1978) Word Order Change in Old English: Base Reanalysis in Generative
Grammar. Unpublished PhD diss. McGill University, Montreal.
Chomsky, N. (1986b) Barriers. MIT Press, Cambridge: Mass.
Chomsky, N. (1993) ‘A Minimalist Program for Linguistic theory’, in Hale, K. &
Keyser,K. (eds.) View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honour of
Sylvain Bromberger. MIT Press, Cambridge: Mass [reprinted in Chomsky
(1995)].
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge: Mass.
Chomsky, N. (1998) Minimalist Inquiries. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol.
15.
Chomsky, N. (1999) Derivation by Phase. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol.
18.
Chomsk, N. 2001) Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. Ms, MIT.
Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. (1993) ‘Principles and parameters Theory’, in J. Jacobs,
A.van stechow, W. Sternefeld and T. Vennemann (eds.) An International
21
Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
Handbook of Contemporary Research. de Gruyter: Berlin [reprinted in
Chomsky (1995)].
Fanselow, G. (1990) ‘Scrambling as NP-movement’. In Scrambling & Barriers,
Grewendorf, G. & Sternefeld, W. (eds.). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fischer, O. (1996) ‘The Status of to in Old English to-infinitives: A reply to
Kageyama’. Lingua 99: 107-133.
Heageman, L. (1991) Introduction to Government & Binding Theory. Blackwell:
London.
Holmberg, A. (1986) Word Order & Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian
Languages & English. PhD dissertation, Dept. of General Linguistics, Univ. of
Stockholm.
Holmberg, A. (1991) ‘The Distribution of Scandinavian Weak Pronouns’, in van
Riemsdijk, H. & L. Rizzi (eds.) Clitics and their hosts. Geneva/Tilburg.
Jack, G. (1991) ‘The Infinitive in early Middle English’. Neuphilologische
Mitteilungen 92: 311-341.
Jarad, N. (1995a) ‘The Status of TO in Old English to-Infinitives’, paper read at the
Spring Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, University of
Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Jarad, N. (1995b) ‘The Rise of for in Middle English for-to-Infinitives’, paper read at
the Autumn Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain,
University of Essex.
Jarad, N. (1997 The Origin & Development of For-Infinitives. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Wales, Bangor.
Johnson, K. (1991) ‘Object Positions’, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9:
577-636.
Josefsson, G. (1992) ‘Object Shift & Weak Pronominals in Swedish’. Working Papers
in Scandinavian Syntax 49: 59-94.
Kageyama, T. (1992) ‘AGR in Old English to-infinitives’. Lingua 88: 91-128.
Kayne, R. (1991) ‘Romance Clitics, Verb Movement, and PRO’. Linguistic Inquiry
22:647-686.
Kemenade, A. van (1987) Syntactic Case & Morphological Case in the History of
English. Dordrecht: Foris.
22
Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
Larson, R. K. (1988) ‘On the Double Object Construction’. Linguistic Inquiry 19:
335-391.
Lightfoot, D. (1979) Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge University Press.
Lightfoot, D. (1981) ‘The History of NP-Movement’, in Baker, C.L. & J.J. Mcarthy
(eds.) The Logical problem of Language Acquisition. MIT Press, Cambridge:
Mass.
Lightfoot, D. (1991) How to set Parameters: Arguments from Language Change.
Bradford Books, MIT Press, Cambridge: Mass.
Lightfoot, D. (1997) ‘Catastrophic Change & Learnability Theory’. Lingua 100: 171192.
Mitchell, B. (1985) Old English Syntax. Clarendon: Oxford.
Müller, G. & W. Sternefeld (1991) ‘Scrambling as A'-movement’, ms, Universtät
Ronstanz.
Mustanoja, T. F. (1960) Middle English Syntax. Helsinki.
Nunes, J. (1993) ‘Bare & to-infinitives in the History of English’. ms. University of
Maryland, Washington.
Pollock, J-Y (1989) ‘Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP’.
Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424.
Roberts, I. (1992) Verbs & Diachronic Syntax: A Comparative History of English &
French. Dordrecht: Foris.
Roberts, I. (1995) ‘Object Movement & Verb Movement in Early Modern English’, in
Haider, H., S. Olsen & S.Vikner (eds.) Proceedings of the 7th Comparative
GermanicSyntax Conference. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rohrbacher, B. (1994) The Germanic Language and the Full Paradigm: A Theory of
V to I Raising. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Santorini, B. (1991) ‘Scrambling & INFL in German’, ms. University of
Pennsylvania.
Sportiche, D. (1988) ‘A Theory of Floating Quantifiers & its Corollaries for
constituent Structure’. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 33-60.
Vikner, S. (1994) Verb Movement and the Licensing of NP-Positions in the Germanic
Languages. OUP, Oxford/New York.
Visser, F. T. (1963-1973) An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden:
23
Journal of Language and Linguistics
Vol. 2 No. 1 2003
ISSN 1475 - 8989
Brill.
Williams, E. (1994) Thematic Structure in Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge: Mass.
Zubizarretta, M-L. (1982) On the Relation of the Lexicon to Syntax. PhD dissertation,
MIT.
24